I'm not a Blair supporter (far from it)...I opposed the war in Iraq and continue to be outspoken on the issue in public along with other controvesial Labour policies (tuition fees or foundation hospitals anyone?) However, Gordon Brown's speech to Conference this morning was a speech of a man angling for the party leadership. In 5000 words he merely touched on Iraq in what seemed to be a nod to party unity, instead focussing on domestic issues like the NHS.

Those of you who remember Brown's words on the day he agreed to step aside in the leadership campaign of 1994 in favour of Blair will also remember his calls for "party unity"...his "personal sacrafice". The irony of the language here is striking and one cannot ignore the allusion to the '94 campaign. Note also his vociferous attempts to emphasise "Old Labour".

The message of this speech was obvious: do not underestimate me, I will be leader and expect a radical shift when it happens. The current rhetoric is another "personal sacrafice" for Brown; he knows that it is more difficult to lead a splintered party and wants to ensure they are united before he takes control.

MJ

Did he really emphasise "Old Labour" as you imply ? Or was it more that he downplayed "New Labour" ? Either way we must not forget that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are indeed THE architects of "New Labour"...

In my opinion (and, after all, it is only MY opinion), Gordon Brown cannot be credited as an "architect" of this New Labour. I belive that Brown's version of New Labour would have been very different from the one that TB has created. Only since "New Labour" has become a byword for spin and sleaze has it been impossible to utter the name without some sort of negative connotation. Perhaps what we will see during Brown's (inevitable) leadership is New New Labour; a departure from the culture of sleaze and a return to the old ways adapted to be compatible with a modern socialist outlook.

The difference between Brown and Blair could not be any more pronounced. Today's speech ( http://www.labour.org.uk/gbbournemouth/) most certainly was a pitch for an alternative leadership. Look at the language...although he expressed his support for the war, he made it quite clear that it was Blair's war and not his, thus distancing himself from it. Take, for example:

"Just as it is right to back our leader Tony Blair in his efforts today to bring security and reconstruction to Iraq"

This was not his war. However, in contrast just look at the language when discussing economic and social policy; he clearly takes "ownership" of the policies. Note also his attitude towards the US labour market: "America is enterprising but not today seen as fair" - a comment that would not have passed the lips of Blair.

Finally, perhaps the most telling sign of his tacit solidarity with Old Labour was his description of the extension of the minimum wage as a "memorial to the work of the late John Smith". Isn't this a slap in the face to Blair who has placed this as *his* most important piece of social policy since 1997?

MJ

TB?
GB?
Who gives a fuck?

They are all mouthpieces to BP!

BP -- Old Anglo Iranian Oil Comapny is not only our biggest company also the uncontested leader of the big money earners based in the UK.

There is a revovling door betwen No 10's and BP's spin mechanisms and that is all there to it apart from the murderous thuggery they use globally to sustain what is clearly wrong and immoral.

It seems, at heart, Brown is very much old Labour, he seemed to be holding back from saying it in the speech but he did make some veiled references. "We are better... when we are labour" sound like a dig at Blair for being too tory? Also "Labour needs not just a programme but a soul" surely this goes against every new Labour value, programmes and utilitarianism replacing labour's soul after it was sold to BP and others, as ram points out.
Brown may not be perfect, but i think he's be a damn sight better than Tony Blair, as he understands that we are tired of a government in the pay of big business, of a right wing prime minister, and of New Labour.

You were obviously taken in by the Ch4 propaganda "The Deal"... It sounds as if your trying to say GB has been working under duress all these years ? (including the years with Kinnock - who got rid of the left of the party) Are you trying to say he has been deceiving us all his career, for the 'greater good' of course ? Are you saying he uses machiavellian principle to achieve his aims ? Coz if you are, he is obviously not to be trusted as a man of his word ! Why therefore are you so inclined to take him at his word - not that he has actually said anything, only ambiguous hints that have been elaborated on by the like of yourself.... your not part of the "Rockwell" Network by any chance ?

Hmmm...... Help destroy old labour over a period of decades just to have his hour of glory when it's his turn ? Yeah right ! Yawn !


Ram:
Spot on ! Though perhaps you should add UnumProvident, the Multination Insurance Company (funding this Labour Party conference) who use psychiatrists to provide alternative explanations for disease, so they can deny claimants who have environmental mediated illnesses, cause by BPs toxic produce...

Oh what a tangled web !

Rainman,

True but you will nevrr catch BP-Amoco directly sponsoring anything cheap stupid like a party political conference.
It is much more sophisticated than that. Top oil/arms executives volunteering to cut their declared salaries by upto 90% to steer vital commissions, committes and even departments is beyond cheap tricks playes at seaside retreat full of idiots. Still worrying though.

Anyhow here is a list of some of the players after the small pickings

2003

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/277733.html

 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/big_business_in_bournemout.html

2002
 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/20020930000101.html

...I actually didn't watch "The Deal" and don't know much about it beyond a review in the Guardian on Monday...

...One last point that I thought was quite amusing. One of the posters above referred to Brown's veiled comments. Did anyone notice his comment about millions dying of "TB"...a "disease" that can be "easily cured"?

MJ

A pigscum picks TB out of the usual spin choices.
The other candidates would have been landmines, malaria, HIV/AIDS and some medical experiment er....the list is fast growing short.

None of stop the trade in arms, non-renewable energy, death through starvation, thrid world debt, world peace, climate change etc. that will be much more realistic and by default alleviate TB and other 'easily curable' woes by empowerment in an holistic way!!!!